http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/dec/21/science-policy-brian-cox
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-h-word/2012/dec/21/history-science...
http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/sci-tech/2012/12/brian-cox-and-robi...

"Their argument is that, because science has been twisted and undermined by politicians, there needs to be clearer separation between scientific truths and political values."

They also argue that the muddying of the water occurs on both sides, and that is what sent the science Twitter-verse into a frenzy.  The belief that the right is in science denial and the left is grounded in data is vital to the world view of the overwhelming majority of scientists and a shockingly high number in science media.  In the light of truth, scientists and science media would be forced to consider that they really don't vote on science issues, they just vote the way they want to vote and rationalize it as being more scientific because more people in science are on their side.

Churchill said science should be "on tap, not on top" and he was right; but science cannot be a neutral endeavor for the public good when the people doing it circle the wagons around some fields of science and label skeptics as political hacks while embracing other anti-science believers because that happen to vote the same way.  Critics of the right wing stance on evolution love to note that Republicans 'deny' evolution - and they do.  49% of them, in fact.  But they leave out that 40% of Democrats do too. However, the anti-vaccine is far more lopsided toward the left and yet the Republican going after CDC director at a recent hearing was jumped on by science media for being an "anti-vaxxer"while the numerous Democrats who make up the overwhelming majority of that movement are dismissed with 'it happens on both sides' rationalization.